"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago."
From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas
0 Replies
Quehoniaomath
0
Reply
Sun 21 Sep, 2014 01:24 pm
Quote:
A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago.
(Antarctic Journal, Washington)
0 Replies
Quehoniaomath
0
Reply
Sun 21 Sep, 2014 01:25 pm
Quote:
"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years."
("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)
0 Replies
Quehoniaomath
0
Reply
Sun 21 Sep, 2014 01:26 pm
Quote:
"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.
(Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)
0 Replies
Quehoniaomath
0
Reply
Sun 21 Sep, 2014 01:26 pm
Quote:
"The Carbon-14 contents of the shells of the snails of Melanoides tuberculatus living today in artesian springs in southern Nevada indicate an apparent age of 27,000 years."
Alan C. Riggs, Science, vol 224 (1984) 58-61
0 Replies
Quehoniaomath
0
Reply
Sun 21 Sep, 2014 01:27 pm
Quote:
"In the light what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as a "proof" for their beliefs. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who based their argument upon the dates. The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.
’This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read’."
Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, Anthropological Journal of Canada
0 Replies
Quehoniaomath
0
Reply
Sun 21 Sep, 2014 01:55 pm
Quote:
"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
(Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)
0 Replies
parados
1
Reply
Sun 21 Sep, 2014 04:06 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:
Quote:
If you happen to have a trilion[sic] accidents you will end up with a lot of trucks that differ from other trucks in a many ways.
yeah sure, and if you have a trillion accidents over a trillion years you get a Rolls Royce, the newest one!
LOL
How absolutely absurd this evolution **** is!
Your analogy is absurd. Trucks don't reproduce. They have accidents. Plants and animals reproduce using the DNA passed on to create the new organism.
If you are curious to know the Big Bang is operating everywhere, including without being limited to, the Earth.
The result of the Big Bang is not the Big Bang. Nor does the Big Bang have anything to do with the theory of evolution. The earth could have been made by an intelligent turtle as far as the theory of evolution cares.
If not by Evolution, then by what process do you think this is happening?
I don't claim that it is not by evolution. What I claim is that even if it is by evolution (I would call it gradual changes with the time), we don't know how exactly it is happening. There are no direct DNA evidences of evolution. There are no direct evidences that the changes in the environment are able to write any biocode, let alone hereditary. I don't know.
No, it is not. Actually the analogy is rather adequate. I can give you another analogy. If you throw a stone at a charcoal lump what do you think will happen - it will break down into piece. The more stones you throw - the finer the broken pieces will be. If you continue throwing stones at charcoal for a period of 'billions & billions of years' (using the words of Carl Sagan), you will have diamonds in the end ... really?! It is exactly what the evolution is claiming - notwithstanding that a stochastic event cannot produce a neat biocode, if we consider (a sequence of) stochastic events for a period of 'billions and billions of years' the impossible somehow becomes absolute reality, where the keyword is ... somehow.
Problem is also as that evolutionists think that the longer the time , the better/higher the changes become.
Any good statistical book will learn you that that is false!
And nothing could be further from the truth.
Because a change let's call it P(x) is always between 0 and 1. Always, always, always.
If you add all the changes over trilion of years then P(x) > 1, which is an impossibility, an absurdity.
You see, you don't add changes in this case, you MULTIPLY them!~
and because you multiply a number between 0 and 1, after being multiplied the number is SMALLER!
So, with time the changes become smaller and smaller and smaller.
And because evolutionists say that it took trillion of years, the change is extremely close to o!
That's right, evolution can't happen, statisticaly speaken.
Nor does the Big Bang have anything to do with the theory of evolution
I always have to laugh about these sort of things.
When they run into these kind of difficulties they just say that it doesn't belong to 'evolution'. Well, I am awaiting the time when they run in so much trouble that they start saying, evolution hasn't anything to do with evolution.
0 Replies
Quehoniaomath
0
Reply
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 01:52 am
'scientists' say first there was the Biggie Bangie, which actually never was of course, then from some tomato soup spontaneous live was generated! Well, sure, they have never been able to replicate this! Then by some change this spontaneus life changed into a zillion animals, plants and Hillary Clinton!
Maybe the evolutionists better take a look at this first, this is what evolutionists do, magnified!
Well, quahog, if you think Monty Python is relevant, remember that 6 out of 6 members of the Python troupe accept the truth of the Big Bang and evolution.
WHENEVER LIFE GETS YOU
DOWN, MRS. BROWN, AND
THINGS SEEM HARD OR TOUGH,
AND PEOPLE ARE STUPID,
OBNOXIOUS OR DAFT AND YOU
FEEL THAT YOU'VE HAD QUITE
ENOUGH...
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving,
And revolving at 900 miles an hour,
That's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour
Of the Galaxy we call the Milky Way.
Our Galaxy itself contains 100 billion stars
It's 100,000 light years side to side
It bulges in the middle, 16,000 light years thick
But out by us it's just 3,000 light years wide
We're 30,000 light years from galactic central point,
We go round every 200 million years
And our Galaxy is only one of millions and billions
In this amazing and expanding Universe
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light you know,
12 million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely it is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
Because there's bugger all down here on Earth.
Congratulations, quahog, you've just proved that no change of ANY sort is possible in the universe, which must mean of course that we are still living in the midst of the Big Bang, because the probability of change must be multiplied so becomes essentially zero. Hot, isn't it? And it;s been just as hot and dense for trillions of years now, hasn't it? (It's billions of years, incidentally, not trillions; You're off by a factor of 1000, not to mention your math sucks. What Herald's math "proves", since he was the one who came up with this lunacy, is the probability of ONE SPECIFIC strand of 300,000,000 base pairs ever existing by RANDOM CHANCE, which is nonsense, because that strand would be gibberish, and DNA is not gibberish, and is NOT random. It has been ordered since its existnce started, not random, and calculations of probability only apply if the occurences are random. Chemistry is not random either, nor is biology).
If not by Evolution, then by what process do you think this is happening?
I don't claim that it is not by evolution. What I claim is that even if it is by evolution (I would call it gradual changes with the time)...
You left out the part about Natural Selection, which is a pretty important part. Did you just forget that part, or do you have some objection to the idea of Natural Selection?
0 Replies
Quehoniaomath
1
Reply
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 06:47 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Congratulations, quahog, you've just proved that no change of ANY sort is possible in the universe, which must mean of course that we are still living in the midst of the Big Bang, because the probability of change must be multiplied so becomes essentially zero. Hot, isn't it? And it;s been just as hot and dense for trillions of years now, hasn't it? (It's billions of years, incidentally, not trillions; You're off by a factor of 1000, not to mention your math sucks. What Herald's math "proves", since he was the one who came up with this lunacy, is the probability of ONE SPECIFIC strand of 300,000,000 base pairs ever existing by RANDOM CHANCE, which is nonsense, because that strand would be gibberish, and DNA is not gibberish, and is NOT random. It has been ordered since its existnce started, not random, and calculations of probability only apply if the occurences are random. Chemistry is not random either, nor is biology).
Maybe stat reading up on statistics. what you are claiming is extremely wrong indeed.
And while you are at it, try some reading up to evolution as well.!
are you realy claiming now that evolution is not random???
Do you even know what you wrote and what the implications are??
I think you are getting very scared of the statistics.
You seem to be in denial.
Well, quahog, if you think Monty Python is relevant, remember that 6 out of 6 members of the Python troupe accept the truth of the Big Bang and evolution.
Which is not relevant at all of course because we are not voting here mate!
There was no Biggie Bangie, there is no proof and there was no evolution because there is no proof.
That is very very difficult to understand for some people here.
0 Replies
parados
1
Reply
Mon 22 Sep, 2014 07:20 am
@Herald,
Another false analogy since once again you are not adding energy. If you throw charcoal in a pile and then add the energy of compression you will get diamonds.
Quote:
if we consider (a sequence of) stochastic events for a period of 'billions and billions of years' the impossible somehow becomes absolute reality, where the keyword is
This is where we differ. I suggest something will happen while you are arguing nothing will because the likelihood of the outcome was so high. In a time period where billions of different outcomes are possible, the likelihood of at least one outcome occurring is 1. You want to argue that it is zero.
